There is no legitimate reason to attack backline Hexes.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Before I start I want to define a few things so we don't misunderstand each other.

(Based on information as of 7/24/12.)

There are 3 resources, there are 71 capturable territories. (~23 per side, ~8 per side per resource)

Territories that are adjacent to enemy territories take longer to capture.

Everyone has a pool of resources that has a cap on how much can be stored.

Tactical gameplay is figuring out how to take a base. Strategic gameplay is figuring out how to take a cont and which cont to attack afterward.

------------

The only justification I've heard from a dev source so far to attack an enemy territory behind their lines is to deny a resource as to take away a type of vehicle or upgrade. These territories have a longer cap time and a quicker recap time. There won't be any surprise advantage for the attacker as the mission system will probably produce missions to stop attackers when they start taking nodes. To pull such a capture off I'd need to use my best players and put a lot of effort into planning the attack if I'm going to hope to hold it for any length of time and make it more effective. This won't win me any yahtzee bonus chips with my squadmates as the best exp and resources are going to be along the boarders not deep in enemy territory. If I do manage to capture a territory, the other empire still has on average 7 other territories still producing that resource and they're getting that resource for fighting anyway.

So what have I done? I've taken my best troops away from the main fight, I've spent a lot of time to do something that can be corrected in a short period of time, and all for a slight decrease in my opponent's resource generation.

At this point it seems that attacking a backline territory would actually hurt my own side more than it would help it. It feels like there's been a lot of time and effort put into the tactical side of planetside 2 (with base generators, building placement, and dispersed capture nodes) but very little thought has been put into a larger strategic picture of the game. This worries me and I'd love to hear what their plans are just to know that they have one and are thinking about this.

tl;dr: See thread title.

[Stardouser]

Forced meatgrinding along the front line, and denial of sandbox tactics/strategies, no thanks.

[GreatMazinkaise]

The influence system will come into this, I think. It was implied that splitting enemy territories in two will reduce the influence of the cut off hexes, thus decreasing SOI size, cap times, spawn timers, and myriad other things. It's not implemented as of right now, so I think flipping bases in the tech test is ridiculously easy.

[Sephirex]

If you can draw off 100 enemy troops off the front line with only 20 of your own, that is a success right there whether you hold the base or not.

[Zulthus]

nvm.

[ringring]

So in PS1 terms was there a reason to do a gen hold?
The purpose of a gen hold was to deny a benefit, it was also fun. It appears that you wouldn't want this option?
If this kind of thing persists, ps2 will be a lesser game than ps1.

[Dloan]

Forced meatgrinding along the front line, and denial of sandbox tactics/strategies, no thanks.

That's what people said when the lattice system was introduced.

[noxious]

I remember a thread Malorn started a while ago about the resource system and capture mechanics where we came up with a lot of ideas to improve the system. I hope we're all just wrong, and that the system will work better in practice than it does in theory, but I worry about this part of the game as well.

[Atlas]

I can think of 3 legit reasons;

Distraction & Diversion - 'Oh hay, we're getting attacked deep in our own territory...noobs. Someone will clean them up' then 'Oh noes, they capped that hex deep in our territory, better send some boyos to clean them up'. And that could give you a brief opportunity to break through a previously impenetrable line

Trolling your enemy/For the lulz

That tech plant 2 hexes away from the impenetrable base you're fighting at currently is closer than the tech plant you own 9 hexes away. Lets take it and get some tanks in the fight or whatever.

[GreatMazinkaise]

So in PS1 terms was there a reason to do a gen hold?
The purpose of a gen hold was to deny a benefit, it was also fun. It appears that you wouldn't want this option?
If this kind of thing persists, ps2 will be a lesser game than ps1.

I thought the purpose of a gen hold was to a) keep the Vanu out of it and b) if in an enemy base it was to keep asshats from your own side from spoiling a good fight that we were already winning.

[Sephirex]

I can think of 3 legit reasons;

Distraction & Diversion - 'Oh hay, we're getting attacked deep in our own territory...noobs. Someone will clean them up' then 'Oh noes, they capped that hex deep in our territory, better send some boyos to clean them up'. And that could give you a brief opportunity to break through a previously impenetrable line

Trolling your enemy/For the lulz

That tech plant 2 hexes away from the impenetrable base you're fighting at currently is closer than the tech plant you own 9 hexes away. Lets take it and get some tanks in the fight or whatever.

Reasons 1 & 3 are why it was first allowed.
Reason 2 is why it was stopped.

[MorioMortis]

It's all about creating lose/lose scenarios for the enemy; if they move troops from the frontline, they risk losing those territories (which are also easier to cap) , but if they don't, than they lose territory in the back, and risk being encircled and denied access to resources. Increasing the time it takes to make backcaps compared to on the frontlines only gives the other team a longer response time and makes it harder to solo cap. The fact that other team may get missions to go there works in your empire's favor, because even more people will get drawn away from the front.

I think we have to think of backcaps in PS2 as more in the line of WW2 style paratrooper drops; they are there to disrupt the enemy, not to topple him over, and they need support from the rest of the army if you don't want to be whipped out rapidly.

[Chrispin]

If you can draw off 100 enemy troops off the front line with only 20 of your own, that is a success right there whether you hold the base or not.

I agree. If the other team gets a mission generated for them to defend a back base, it can only be a nuisance for the guys that need help at the front lines. Imagine if you single-handedly took a point (not even an entire hex) behind enemy lines. You know there's going to be a bunch of enemys that will want to stop what they're doing and run back to where you are, giving your team's front-line a slight advantage. That is unless your team starts spawning at the new base behind enemy lines. In that case it's really variable.

[QuantumMechanic]

I think all of this is subject to change during beta base off of feedback just like yours - except during beta and on the beta forums.

[feuerdog]

I agree that the system doesn't look economically strategic enough, I do think much of this will be explored in beta as the territory we fight over is expanded.

The risk/reward outline potential for behind the lines strategies are there however.

[Sephirex]

Yeah this has been discussed ad nauseum and the only conclusion I can draw from this lack of gameplay depth is it's simply not needed to turn a short term profit. F2P games are designed to generate most income in their early life so what better way to do that than forsake metaplay for cash shop "sidegrades". Simply put, game play development has been sacrificed to promote cash shop revenue generation.

"They obviously made it crappier because it'd make more money."

What?

[Xyntech]

Does controlling surrounding territory speed up the capture time on every hex, or just on base facilities? From what we've currently seen, towers and outposts seem to flip instantly after you hack the CC just like towers in the first game.

Is there currently anything stopping a well organized backhacking team from simultaneously hacking every single hex surrounding an enemy base deep behind the front lines, and then immediately moving to hack the base itself with the surrounding hex advantage? Aside from being spotted before they pull it off that is...

I definitely think PS2 is going to be a little bare bones on some of the advanced strategic elements at the start of beta, but it seems like a pretty robust canvas to add appropriate features in during beta.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Does controlling surrounding territory speed up the capture time on every hex, or just on base facilities? From what we've currently seen, towers and outposts seem to flip instantly after you hack the CC just like towers in the first game.

I think it's safe to say at this point that the grunts work, the vehicles work, and some bare terminal/spawn/capture point functionality is in the current build of the game. Nothing else appears to have been implemented in a way that players can interact with.

[VaderShake]

If you can draw off 100 enemy troops off the front line with only 20 of your own, that is a success right there whether you hold the base or not.

This.....

It will keep teams honest and have to watch their backs. With 3 factions pushing back hexes will be a way to keep one faction from holding 2 lines consistantly. They will eventually have to send troops back weakening the fronts or risk losing assets and eventually being divided. Not to mention.....people will try taking back hexes just to be a pain...

[Trolltaxi]

I think I have understood the OP and I share his doubts. Those 7 more resource pools are too much - you don't really make a difference when you manage to capture one or two. They will still have a good flow of the resource so you haven't changed the picture of the current battle.

[Xyntech]

I think I have understood the OP and I share his doubts. Those 7 more resource pools are too much - you don't really make a difference when you manage to capture one or two. They will still have a good flow of the resource so you haven't changed the picture of the current battle.

Well the devs have already talked about intending to have different hexes give different quantities of their resource. A lot is going to depend on how well balanced the resource system is as well, or else denial isn't going to count for much.

[VaderShake]

I think I have understood the OP and I share his doubts. Those 7 more resource pools are too much - you don't really make a difference when you manage to capture one or two. They will still have a good flow of the resource so you haven't changed the picture of the current battle.

Well forget about the resources pools then, what about a group of 20 people shooting down aircraft, destroying tanks, or other assets before they can make it to the front line to reinforce? A gorilla insurgency behind the lines will slow the team down and have them fighting in 2 directions regardless of resources.

[p0intman]

Forced meatgrinding along the front line, and denial of sandbox tactics/strategies, no thanks.

my god why am I agreeing with you?

Seriously, they need to make sure this type of gameplay is viable.

[FPClark]

Crappier for who? The CoD and BF guys dont know about persistent gameplay so they miss nothin? Give them stats, a cash shop and a region sized hex cap (equiv to map instance) and they and SOE go home fat, dumb and happy.

Pretty bold statement coming from someone who hasnt played the game yet. :groovy:

[Dloan]

Well forget about the resources pools then, what about a group of 20 people shooting down aircraft, destroying tanks, or other assets before they can make it to the front line to reinforce? A gorilla insurgency behind the lines will slow the team down and have them fighting in 2 directions regardless of resources.

That's what I was just wondering. It all depends on how the lines of supply are set up. At the end of the day, destroying assets before they can affect the battle *is* denying resources.

[SFJake]

Its obvious the game is going into a F2P "mass appeal" direction. I think they pretty much outright said that in diffferent words.

They did say they intend to develop further along the line, but there's no point denying the truth. Planetside 2 is not, at release, intended to be as deep a game that it could be, because mass appeal and profit is more important.

And I actually agree. If it can gather LARGE popularity right off the bat, it will last longer, and they will be able to get the game as far as they REALLY want to long term.

That is, if they're good willed, nice developers. I believe in them, regardless of this truth, because I hope they can deliver in the long term.


Now bear in mind, I'm saying they are obviously not focusing on this. But that doesn't mean there are no strategies or that the game is a dumb meatgrinder: its extremely hard to say without playing the game.

[Greenthy]

Yeah this has been discussed ad nauseum and the only conclusion I can draw from this lack of gameplay depth is it's simply not needed to turn a short term profit. F2P games are designed to generate most income in their early life so what better way to do that than forsake metaplay for cash shop "sidegrades". Simply put, game play development has been sacrificed to promote cash shop revenue generation.

I think LoL is already quite old and still makes a profit :)
There are alot of different F2P games, there is no single set way to make money out of it and every new game is free to try its own way.

[Trolltaxi]

Well the devs have already talked about intending to have different hexes give different quantities of their resource. A lot is going to depend on how well balanced the resource system is as well, or else denial isn't going to count for much.

I fear that too much burden is on the resource system. If it won't be balanced (I mean, you and your empire always have the resources but you never have too much of it to lay back and forget about it) the whole tactical aspect is a goner.

Even with different resources for each it is quite simple. You have the dilenma to gather more of what you need or deny the enemy what they need, but checking your balance will always tell you where to go. If you have some deposit, you will fight to deny, if there is a shortage, you will fight to gather.

The lattice, combined with caves, mods, benefits, the system of the genhold to cut off the main fight from all the benefits etc. provided a lot of tactical decisions.

The resource system alone cannot replace it I fear.

[Sephirex]

I fear that too much burden is on the resource system. If it won't be balanced (I mean, you and your empire always have the resources but you never have too much of it to lay back and forget about it) the whole tactical aspect is a goner.

Even with different resources for each it is quite simple. You have the dilenma to gather more of what you need or deny the enemy what they need, but checking your balance will always tell you where to go. If you have some deposit, you will fight to deny, if there is a shortage, you will fight to gather.

The lattice, combined with caves, mods, benefits, the system of the genhold to cut off the main fight from all the benefits etc. provided a lot of tactical decisions.

The resource system alone cannot replace it I fear.

It was so long ago that I may be completely wrong, but I remember Planetside 1 launching without a lattice system, base benefits, or caves. These systems were introduced to complement the gameplay.

I'm HOPING that the team is also keeping the systems fairly open ended because they want to see how the natural gameplay turns out before putting in the additional rules/mechanics to focus the fighting.

[Sirro]

It's a necessary thing to provide coherent battles to have a front line, this was the reason for the lattice system, because otherwise everyone is likely to be scattered. People do not listen to orders or even recommendations, it's an annoying fact but its true!

SOE wouldn't want people to play the game and start questioning why the battles they keep seeing are only 20v20 when the game advertises hundreds of players at once. We are going to see skirmishes but it will be a small part on a bigger picture as opposed to the bulk of the game.

So with that in mind you need to have mechanics in the game that push people to use team work and to go for objectives. Team Fortress 2 is a perfect example of forcing objectives without destroying the concept of teamwork and command, I recommend loading it up and playing a map called cp_gravelpit for a good example of what this is all about. I don't see them outright removing this but the benefit of the upcoming beta is we will be able to get them to adjust if it really makes back-capping fruitless.

I welcome seeing this because I couldn't stand the lattice system sometimes. Don't get me wrong the 3 hour fights for one base can be very interesting and give you great pride when you take it out and it was a good way to rank. The problem is in a lot of cases when a stalemate like this occurred, the emp that won, usually won by the other emps players getting bored and going to other continents or leaving the game.

This seems messy and doesn't reward good command. However with this system even if you only temporarily back-cap the damage can add up. If they have to move their players around and your emp really only has a skeleton crew harassing, taking the main bases gets easier and easier.

[Harasus]

It is obviously a great strategy to distract enemies. 10-20 guys with a bit of discipline ("Skill" is not exactly needed, as long as they can follow orders and communicate) can probably take a hex behind enemy lines, and then hold it against 20+ enemies for a bit of time.

Another way this can be used is in an encirclement. There are 3 hexes left to take before you can surround several enemy hexes, if you drop a full GAL one of those hexes, one that is not on the frontline, then you can speed up the process of encircling the enemy forces while drawing enemies away from the frontline.

If you have enough troops who are listening to you, this can be done on a massive scale. Same scenario: You have 3 hexes left to take before you can surround several enemy hexes. Only one of these hexes that you must take are on the frontline. You split up a force of 40-50 into 2 groups, take both the inner hexes in one swift move and hold them until the frontline has taken the third hex, saving you the trouble of meatgrinding all the way through three hexes.

[Rumblepit]

you can back hack any hex you want in ps2, outposts, and bases, but if it is not linked to your faction it will take longer for you gain control. no sure if it was smed or matt that said this, but it was talked about already.

[ringring]

**Edit, I think I may have misunderstood the purpose of the original post.

[Joomba]

F2P games are designed to generate most income in their early life so what better way to do that than forsake metaplay for cash shop "sidegrades". Simply put, game play development has been sacrificed to promote cash shop revenue generation.

They've been pretty clear in stating that the sidegrades would not be cash only. You don't like sidegrades? Don't get them, but you still won't be saving any money since you don't need to pay for them in the first place. The obsessed people will likely buy up all the guns they want, but have you forgotten that in PS1 you still needed to work towards getting certain guns through in-game means? Those in-game means are still there.

Cash shop-only items will exclusively be cosmetic.

[n2q0_matrix]

I've already pondered the OP's position and decided to wait until Beta is in full swing and we know exactly what the capture/recapture times are on back line territories.

If it sucks, we will let the Devs know and they will either change it or not.

Let's wait until we have all given it an actual chance. We are sooooo close right now. No reason to rage over an unknown.


IMHO

[Kriegson]

Frankly I like the idea of the new system. People shouldn't be able to easily cap "Secure" areas that aren't on the front lines, though mind you I'm saying "not easily" instead of "not at all".

With the new system of hex control, there will be such things as supply lines, and therefore there will be such a thing as cutting those supply lines. Back capping will fill this role in that if an enemy force drives too far into enemy territory, you can cap areas behind them to cut them off and make their advance far more difficult.

[Rivenshield]

If you can draw off 100 enemy troops off the front line with only 20 of your own, that is a success right there whether you hold the base or not.

This.

The Vanu are notorious for this sort of thing, the sneaky alien bastards.

[Flaropri]

Keep in mind that back-capping can also aid an assault by potentially denying the Cap bonus of a place you intend to take... not to mention provide a spawn point in a flanking position, even if only temporary.

[Gonefshn]

I can understand the idea they have behind making hexes captured slower when they are surrounded by enemy territory. However, I have always felt this penalty just doesn't make sense for game play reasons.

It's going to be harder already to back cap territory for all the reasons stated in the OP and in this thread in general.

Putting additional mechanics in that work against players trying to back cap is going to make it very unappealing.

honestly they should just make every territory capture at the same rate.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I disagree with the OP. I like takin' 'em from behind... Oh wait... Wrong forum.

[Littleman]

Things to note about the various capturable facilities:

Bases = Infantry terminals, Vehicle terminals, Auraxium, SOI's (no squad/gal spawning probably.)

Towers = Infantry terminals, Vehicle terminals, resources.

Bunkers/outposts = (Most likely) infantry terminals, resources.

Hex system = the more hexes you own adjacent to a territory you are attempting to cap, the faster the cap will happen. This may influence ticket gain in bases, for example. Owning all but one point but not having any hexes adjacent to the base may still be excruciatingly slow. Beta and balance passes will tell. Also, we don't know if resource denial starts after capturing the territory, or as soon as it's being contested (hacked.) Finally, naturally bunkers/outposts will be quicker and easier to cap than towers, and towers are easier than bases (about 1, 2, and 6 points respectively, as shown in videos.)

One thing I really advise is that people stop looking at bases as merely bases, but rather, 7 hexes connected together with a large collection of structures to control them. Bunkers/outposts generally consist of just a grouping of smaller buildings and control 1 or 2 hexes, while towers typically have a few buildings around them control 3 or 4 hexes, and come with vehicle spawning capabilities. In terms of PS1, towers are the new "bases." Bases in PS2 are uniquely alluring for their auraxium - A resource only bases provide which is the REAL reason to fight over them. If forward vehicle spawning capability is a concern, a tower will do just as well as any base.

Now, people who think the strategic meta game rests on taking and holding some uncontested backwater, well I got news for them: it's not a very strategically brilliant idea, just an effective one if pulled off. Realistically speaking, if you're doing it to deny the enemy resources, you're doing it for the wrong reasons: successfully taking that point now gives your empire a new location to spread out from. This aspect is far more terrifying for your enemies than simply losing income from a resource node... unless it's a base then maybe that is a contributing factor as well (auraxium.)

Truth is, SOE really does want people to fight along and near the front line, and there is in fact a bit of strategic depth here. Refer to hex capture times. Surrounding a point such as a base or tower with hexes bathed in your colors will only make taking the base/tower much easier. Faster cap/ticket accumulation, and coincidentally slower for your enemies. 20 guys holding a point BEYOND the enemy base, a point opposite to their (the 20's) own front line forces, can arguably assist the main zerg more than those same 20 guys attempting to back hack deep in enemy territory. For both, it really depends on if they succeed or not, and how much trouble they've caused the enemy in the process. Regarding back hacking, respawns will likely rely heavily on medic revives and gal spawning, and regarding gal spawning and SOI influence levels that deep behind enemy lines, it's likely a long trek back to the base.

Final NOTE: It hasn't been confirmed if galaxy spawning will be denied in enemy SOI's, just officially pondered. Drop pods are likely denied from use in enemy SOI's however.

[Klockan]

Before I start I want to define a few things so we don't misunderstand each other.

(Based on information as of 7/24/12.)

There are 3 resources, there are 71 capturable territories. (~23 per side, ~8 per side per resource)

Territories that are adjacent to enemy territories take longer to capture.

Everyone has a pool of resources that has a cap on how much can be stored.

Tactical gameplay is figuring out how to take a base. Strategic gameplay is figuring out how to take a cont and which cont to attack afterward.

------------

The only justification I've heard from a dev source so far to attack an enemy territory behind their lines is to deny a resource as to take away a type of vehicle or upgrade. These territories have a longer cap time and a quicker recap time. There won't be any surprise advantage for the attacker as the mission system will probably produce missions to stop attackers when they start taking nodes. To pull such a capture off I'd need to use my best players and put a lot of effort into planning the attack if I'm going to hope to hold it for any length of time and make it more effective. This won't win me any yahtzee bonus chips with my squadmates as the best exp and resources are going to be along the boarders not deep in enemy territory. If I do manage to capture a territory, the other empire still has on average 7 other territories still producing that resource and they're getting that resource for fighting anyway.

So what have I done? I've taken my best troops away from the main fight, I've spent a lot of time to do something that can be corrected in a short period of time, and all for a slight decrease in my opponent's resource generation.

At this point it seems that attacking a backline territory would actually hurt my own side more than it would help it. It feels like there's been a lot of time and effort put into the tactical side of planetside 2 (with base generators, building placement, and dispersed capture nodes) but very little thought has been put into a larger strategic picture of the game. This worries me and I'd love to hear what their plans are just to know that they have one and are thinking about this.
So, you whine because you think that the payoff from attacking undefended bases is too small? Are you serious? Attacking undefended bases needs to be discouraged since it can easily get out of hand otherwise, as long as you enter the base first you are basically the defenders and then the real defenders will have to assault your positions. If they didn't give the official defenders any bonuses in such a scenario then it would be way easier to cap bases than to defend them which makes for really bad gameplay.

Btw, I like how in some threads people say that back capping will go out of hand and will destroy the game, and in others people say that lack of back capping will cause the game to go stale and thus will destroy the game.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

So, you whine because you think that the payoff from attacking undefended bases is too small? Are you serious? Attacking undefended bases needs to be discouraged since it can easily get out of hand otherwise, as long as you enter the base first you are basically the defenders and then the real defenders will have to assault your positions. If they didn't give the official defenders any bonuses in such a scenario then it would be way easier to cap bases than to defend them which makes for really bad gameplay.

Btw, I like how in some threads people say that back capping will go out of hand and will destroy the game, and in others people say that lack of back capping will cause the game to go stale and thus will destroy the game.

Can't please everybody :)

Seriously, though, I was under the impression that taking a base deep in enemy territory, while possible, would be time consuming. Reason being the "hex-capture" bonus. An assault on an undefended base would take a while because you presumably would not have bothered capturing adjacent hexes. It's time consuming, giving the defenders plenty of time to come to the rescue. If they are too busy, then the attack was well planned. If they aren't, and still don't come... Then... I dunno... You get whatcha give, I suppose.

[Klockan]

Can't please everybody :)

Seriously, though, I was under the impression that taking a base deep in enemy territory, while possible, would be time consuming. Reason being the "hex-capture" bonus. An assault on an undefended base would take a while because you presumably would not have bothered capturing adjacent hexes. It's time consuming, giving the defenders plenty of time to come to the rescue. If they are too busy, then the attack was well planned. If they aren't, and still don't come... Then... I dunno... You get whatcha give, I suppose.
Yup, I know how the hex system works, that mechanic is there to give the defenders an advantage even when the attackers just waltzed in on an empty base beyond the frontlines. The OP in this thread don't like that mechanic though.

[Buggsy]

Before I start I want to define a few things so we don't misunderstand each other.

(Based on information as of 7/24/12.)

There are 3 resources, there are 71 capturable territories. (~23 per side, ~8 per side per resource)

Territories that are adjacent to enemy territories take longer to capture.

Everyone has a pool of resources that has a cap on how much can be stored.

Tactical gameplay is figuring out how to take a base. Strategic gameplay is figuring out how to take a cont and which cont to attack afterward.

------------

The only justification I've heard from a dev source so far to attack an enemy territory behind their lines is to deny a resource as to take away a type of vehicle or upgrade. These territories have a longer cap time and a quicker recap time. There won't be any surprise advantage for the attacker as the mission system will probably produce missions to stop attackers when they start taking nodes. To pull such a capture off I'd need to use my best players and put a lot of effort into planning the attack if I'm going to hope to hold it for any length of time and make it more effective. This won't win me any yahtzee bonus chips with my squadmates as the best exp and resources are going to be along the boarders not deep in enemy territory. If I do manage to capture a territory, the other empire still has on average 7 other territories still producing that resource and they're getting that resource for fighting anyway.

So what have I done? I've taken my best troops away from the main fight, I've spent a lot of time to do something that can be corrected in a short period of time, and all for a slight decrease in my opponent's resource generation.

At this point it seems that attacking a backline territory would actually hurt my own side more than it would help it. It feels like there's been a lot of time and effort put into the tactical side of planetside 2 (with base generators, building placement, and dispersed capture nodes) but very little thought has been put into a larger strategic picture of the game. This worries me and I'd love to hear what their plans are just to know that they have one and are thinking about this.

tl;dr: See thread title.

The "mission system"? Quests?

[Sephirex]

The "mission system"? Quests?

Hah! You adorable little rabble-rouser.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Yup, I know how the hex system works, that mechanic is there to give the defenders an advantage even when the attackers just waltzed in on an empty base beyond the frontlines. The OP in this thread don't like that mechanic though.

Just re-read.... Has he perhaps considered "co-ordinating with a group of people"? TRG for example, hasn't been fielding large numbers of people lately, maybe only twenty in PS1. However, twenty people should be enough to drop into an empty base, and if we co-ordinate the multiple hacks at one time... Six hacks... Twenty guys... That's one to hack and two to guard, with two extra to reinforce... I'm pretty sure we could capture a single base in short order. But... We'd have to talk to each other, I suppose.

[Littleman]

It's worth considering to take something that might have a shorter capture time, like an outpost or tower, than to try immediately for a base, which is intentionally meant to take a while even with friendly, adjacent hexes.

But this is all assuming outposts/towers will have shorter expected capture times to bases under the same conditions. Remember, if it's vehicle capabilities behind enemy lines you want, a TOWER will do just as well. Bases are a bit more secure, yes - as long as the generators stand - but they'll be hard to hold onto against a counter-strike team. Don't assume your 20 guys are the only elites in the game. The enemy could very well have their own, and they get the advantage of spawning on the base grounds.

But by gosh, if that little strike team turns into a real offensive force after a few captures, the previous front line will collapse under the pressure of the third empire (always acting as the wrench,) your front line, and that your targeted enemy is losing everything near their foot hold. That's a really $#!%%& position for them to be in no matter how you look at it.

Technically, everyone's expected to be splitting their 666 troops to fight on two fronts against each of their opposing empires, and that always needs to be considered when strategizing.

[Nolerhn]

I've seen generators mentioned in this thread and a couple of others a few times, but I haven't heard the devs talk about them at all.

What are these generators I've seen people speak of? What is their significance?

[Ranik Ortega]

I've seen generators mentioned in this thread and a couple of others a few times, but I haven't heard the devs talk about them at all.

What are these generators I've seen people speak of? What is their significance?

:Sigh: In planetside 1 bases were linked by a lattice system. Each base had 3 major parts to it The Control console spawn room and generator. If you blew up the generator you basically depowered the base. So while the front line is on the other side of the map and people are fighting you could send in an ops team to rush into a technology plant and blow up its generator. The technology plant gave access to certain advanced vehicles. Like the empire specific tanks if i remember right.

So by sending a team to go behind enemy lines and destroy a tech plant gen you could sabotage the front line fighters abilities to pull certain vehicles.

Other facilities had different bonuses.

[Gonefshn]

I believe the generators are meant to power certain systems in a base like turrets, shields, spawn tubes, equipment terminals etc.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Littleman

Well, that's true. There's more than one group of elites. But my point was, they enemy would either respond or they wouldn't, and the results would tell.

As for one side getting steam rolled. Yeah, that sucks for them, but as you mentioned, there are TWO other empires. Just as soon as one starts concentrating on one, the third strikes THEM. Even if they both join forces to steam roll ONE, sooner or later, they turn on each other. The instant they do, the former under dog has a chance to hit somebody in the rear and start taking back territory (with the advantage of all THEIR numbers being concentrated in a small area, while the other two are spread out on at least two fronts).

[Littleman]

I've seen generators mentioned in this thread and a couple of others a few times, but I haven't heard the devs talk about them at all.

What are these generators I've seen people speak of? What is their significance?

In Planetside 1, each base had a single generator and destroying it pretty much ended the fight, as it rendered everything inside the base inoperable. Defenders needed only to be cleared out one by one with no spawn point in the base anymore.

In Planetside 2, SOE has mentioned in a more recent AGN interview that generators are being planned for the tactical meta-game in base assaults. They'll be more task specific, like one will work turrets, another shield generators, and others for other on site hardware.

[QuantumMechanic]

I would be really surprised if they disallowed Galaxy spawning inside an enemy SOI. It's not like the Gal is cloaked or anything... Unlike a drop pod it's going to take a good while to get in there and land, and then it will be a big fat persistent target for the duration.

My guess (GUESS) is that they will need to give the Galaxy something to make it a more viable forward respawn point. As it stands right now, it sounds like a massive sitting duck.

[Raymac]

Am I the only one that remembers the devs stating that one of the things they are most exicted about is letting more people into the game so they can flesh out these meta game ideas that can only be fully realized once a large number of people are playing?

Considering how the lattice that we've all grown so accustom to in PS1 wasn't even initially in that beta, I think it's safe to say that this issue will certainly be a focus in PS2's beta.

[Dart]

Seriously, though, I was under the impression that taking a base deep in enemy territory, while possible, would be time consuming. Reason being the "hex-capture" bonus.

That isn't quite the way it works. If you're capping a base with no linking hexes the enemy just start off with a % of the required capture point headstart. It doesn't take the 'backhackers' any longer, it simply gives the defenders a headstart which is worthless if there are no defenders to actually defend the base.

EDIT: There is another problem with this dynamic but I can't really detail it. Basically it takes AGES to clear up a backhack unless you get on it immediately which is currently difficult due to map restrictions.

Am I the only one that remembers the devs stating that one of the things they are most exicted about is letting more people into the game so they can flesh out these meta game ideas that can only be fully realized once a large number of people are playing?

Considering how the lattice that we've all grown so accustom to in PS1 wasn't even initially in that beta, I think it's safe to say that this issue will certainly be a focus in PS2's beta.

Neither the lattice, nor hotspots were in PS1 beta. PS2 beta requires both I think.

[Timithos]

It's a necessary thing to provide coherent battles to have a front line, this was the reason for the lattice system, because otherwise everyone is likely to be scattered. People do not listen to orders or even recommendations, it's an annoying fact but its true!

SOE wouldn't want people to play the game and start questioning why the battles they keep seeing are only 20v20 when the game advertises hundreds of players at once. We are going to see skirmishes but it will be a small part on a bigger picture as opposed to the bulk of the game.

I don't agree. I want to see more dispursement, and less zerg then PS1. I don't ever want to see one bottleneck fight on a continent. The new players will see the ever-changing battlefield on all three continents, they'll fly their mosquitos just to tour the battles. They'll realize how massive this is and realize 20v20 skirmishes are happening all over in really continuous battle. They aren't stupid. I'm sure there will be large battles at times at major facilities too for everyone to enjoy.

Truth is, SOE really does want people to fight along and near the front line, and there is in fact a bit of strategic depth here. Refer to hex capture times. Surrounding a point such as a base or tower with hexes bathed in your colors will only make taking the base/tower much easier. Faster cap/ticket accumulation, and coincidentally slower for your enemies. 20 guys holding a point BEYOND the enemy base, a point opposite to their (the 20's) own front line forces, can arguably assist the main zerg more than those same 20 guys attempting to back hack deep in enemy territory. For both, it really depends on if they succeed or not, and how much trouble they've caused the enemy in the process. Regarding back hacking, respawns will likely rely heavily on medic revives and gal spawning, and regarding gal spawning and SOI influence levels that deep behind enemy lines, it's likely a long trek back to the base.

From what I've seen and read, this sounds more viable. Shallow back-hacking where you take one sector beyond enemy lines and immediately attack the flank of your opponent. Crushing them between your two forces sounds very devastating. Deep-back-hacking doesn't sound too strategically sound unless it really denies... something, as in you've almost pushed an empire off the continent, and this one deep sector would deny them... ground armor or something like that. I don't know - it seems more based on resources and there's arleady a plethora of vehicle terms available. Perhaps this one deep sector is the largest and last resource sector they hold decimating their ability to spawn armor and aircraft.

Or here is another strategy: You deep-back-hack because it's behind enemy lines of the "3rd" empire. So you again pin the enemy between two opposing forces along with the fact that you want to beat the 3rd empire to the punch.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Fact:
2000 people will not fit into a small area.

Fact:
Battles in history that involved thousands of soldiers, or tens of thousands of soldiers, were spread over large areas, perhaps miles (except for old melee battles, where everyone was kinda concentrated).

Fact:
The map is large enough, people will be attack multiple areas at one time. Likelihood of seeing hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of players in a SMALL area will = LAG. CHAOS. MEATGRINDER.

Speculation:
"hundreds of players in epic cluster fuck battles" will be more likely "a force 3 or 4 hundred strong moving in the same direction, with the same basic objectives, but spread out over a battle line a kilometer across. It's not so likely to be "one huge clusterfuck" as "dense fighting spread over an area". From above, it would be "one massive battle" consisting of many smaller battles spread over an area.

Not really a design choice, or conscious decision on anyone's part, it'll just tend to be more spread out than that, unless everyone wants to form up in a big mob and zerg. I guess there's nothing to stop that, and I'm sure it'll happen, even so, I expect the zerg will be spread out. By definition zerg are usually not hyper organised, so they'll be kinda strung out and helter skelter. Who knows. We'll see soon. Maybe next week :D


-edit

And the most important reason to strike at an enemies rear lines: it doesn't matter if it's effective or not. It pisses them off. Draws their attention elsewhere. Even if it fails, and doesn't draw their attention, it's still a nuisance. A large percentage of the meta game is 'head games' as well. It may be a video game, but many aspects of basic psychology still apply, because it's PEOPLE on the other end of that virtual soldier. People don't LIKE when you attack their back lines :)

[Littleman]

Well yeah but... spending 20 of your guys only to be countered by 20-40 (if only that many respond) of theirs... those small numbers won't really hurt the front line in either direction. I mean, at the end of the day, people were off the front line for both sides.

But yes, people will spread out, and head to their assigned objective because there's a reward for it. I'm certain some of this was gleaned from MAG. There were maps that touted 256 players, 128 per side, but cleverly set up so that each faction was split up into 4 platoons of 4 squads, and each squad had 8 people, and the game directed 2 squads to a specific capture point to either take or defend it. Mind you, squad leads, platoon leads, even faction leads (in the battle) could adjust the objective locations, but most did not.

On top of that, there were sub-objectives that involved useful structures like a vehicle bay that spawned buggies for the defense, among other structures. There was in fact a lot to do, and it kept forces spread out across the map fairly well, but you still felt like you were part of a massive battle, because each squad contributed a little to the score for every point held. Hell, at the start everything looked peaceful. By the end, there are plumes of smoke everywhere. It really sold the effect, without crunching 256 players into a small area where one could see them all. I mean, it was possible for the players to get to that point, but no one would have a running PS3 after that.

I imagine Planetside 2's bases will play out very similarly to the domination game type of MAG.

[Nolerhn]

In Planetside 1, each base had a single generator and destroying it pretty much ended the fight, as it rendered everything inside the base inoperable. Defenders needed only to be cleared out one by one with no spawn point in the base anymore.

In Planetside 2, SOE has mentioned in a more recent AGN interview that generators are being planned for the tactical meta-game in base assaults. They'll be more task specific, like one will work turrets, another shield generators, and others for other on site hardware.

Thanks, I had read about their functions in PS1, but I had never heard what the devs intended to do with them for PS2. Sounds like they could make for interesting secondary objectives to make the main capture points of a base easier to take.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Yeah, and too, when one small group wins their local engagement, they are then free to move into a nearby engagement and influence it's result. It's more than just points... They actually DO matter to each other :)

I'm looking forward to it, I really am. I have my little nitpicks over this or that, but regardless of how stringently I argue for or against something, they are just that: nitpicks. I'm excited to see how this damn thing goes :D

[Momember]

For those who watch TB's latest video you would have noticed the fact they had back hacked a few node from the vanu. They kept taking the Aircraft spawner so they could muck around in the Lib but I think this shows exactly a situation where back hacking is viable.

Back hack to gain Air Superiority
cut off supply chain
guerilla tactics

I can for see some outfits dedicating them selves to these strategies.

[Timithos]

For those who watch TB's latest video you would have noticed the fact they had back hacked a few node from the vanu. They kept taking the Aircraft spawner so they could muck around in the Lib but I think this shows exactly a situation where back hacking is viable.

Back hack to gain Air Superiority
cut off supply chain
guerilla tactics

I can for see some outfits dedicating them selves to these strategies.

Their game play was still being corral'd into only about 2 sectors with an out-of-bounds zone. So there was no real deep/backline hacking like something way back at a warpgate or an empire foothold. We're talking behind enemy lines, and that was a frontline battle. Still I see what you're saying. It can be quite a pitched battle just within your own sector, and one may not have the forces immediately available to worry about flanking entire sectors.

[super pretendo]

Just tweak the modifiers. If behind-lines attacks are too detracting from the game, dramatically increase the cap times for fully enclosed hexes. This takes care of the problem without removing the fun viability of the strategy for well-organized groups. That's the thing; this strategy shouldn't be viable for any zerg on a whim, that won't be fun. There should be battle lines drawn, with disciplines teams having an opportunity to circumvent this

[Voltar]

there was mention of adding soi's and basing the size of the soi on the amount of influence from neighboring hexes. that means if you start back hacking them, it'll not only break up the turtling but also allow squad spawning and gal spawning closer to the objectives.

i can't wait to see how the player-based quest creation system adds awesomeness to the game. there's a lot of potential for interesting coordination with that.

[Rivenshield]

TNeither the lattice, nor hotspots were in PS1 beta. PS2 beta requires both I think.

There's no lattice in PS2. There's the hex system.

But they *do* need to keep hotspots.

[Karrade]

You don't go deep into enemy territory expecting an easy fight. This is why paratroopers and such get their own unique training and objectives.

Missions can be made intelligently, if they are there will be no problem. They can be balanced rewards, or not. They can be balanced so one single infil doesn't warrant 30 people joining a mission, or not

Statements that they will be X way are silly.

Here are various military strategies that may add to the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts

Such as Blitzkrieg, Coercion as was touched on here, Feints, Indirect Approaches, Pincers...

To say none apply or benefit the team who draws more men away with less, is foolish. To say attacking from multiple directions is not as useful as a massed zerg from one direction is also foolish as a generalisation.

As for hitting behind enemy lines, my own personal experience from PS1, you either going to draw some of the fast responders, good troops away, to deal with rear guard or you'll be lucky and draw an even larger response breaking a siege elsewhere.

In this case the mission system should be intelligent. If you complete a mission against larger odds you should gain more reward. Just like if you've only got 1 guy to kill your reward shouldn't be the same, as if you had 100 in the way.

[Marinealver]

If no one is defending a backward teritory then ofcourse you attack it. At worse you will pull players from the front to resecure it, even if it dosn't take as much time. At best you hold it and continue to deny the enemy and begain the envelopment and eventual overrun of the enemy in the contested area.

Now if some players decide to patrol the back hexs once in a while then that tactic will not be viable because it would get caught and stopped. However I bet on the lack of dicipline and everyone just runningto the nearest hotspot like moths to a lamp

[Nemises]

the defensive empire will end up being the moles in whack-a-mole..

I like what littleman is saying though, in terms of, the back hack is just another way to open up a new frontline...

If you consider the back hack a potencial foothold, suddenly you are forcing a split (in both forces admitedly), unless the empire being backhacked is willing to let it stretch to 2 or 3 hexes which seems risky.

I think it could be interesting from a continent wide perspective to manage.

[DevilzRightHand]

Well correct me if I am wrong here, but what :)?

I think there is a good idea to attack (some times) behind the front line.
Like yesterday 4 an example - We were attacking hard along the frond line wile others of our terran brothers did a pincer maneuver behind the lines cutting of there air support, there tank support and there respawn tubes from all the major hexes.

So I don't know what you on about (No hate).
I get it that this game is also a fight about resources but you have to think outside the box here, its not C&C its a war, and in a war its also about to cut out what your enemy can do against you.

[snaffe]

I have no idea what a hex is.

[DevilzRightHand]

Hex is what the map is divided in : ). Every section/base/cap point is in a hex : )

hex = hexagon`s

http://www.google.se/imgres?um=1&hl=sv&client=firefox-nightly&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&biw=1920&bih=960&tbm=isch&tbnid=VGACC1tfb05jeM:&imgrefurl=http://openclipart.org/detail/22140/futurist-hexagons-by-steren&docid=G56z7HtA4OAy0M&imgurl=http://openclipart.org/people/Steren/Steren_Futurist_hexagons.svg&w=1379&h=955&ei=rusPUPzaBcKC4gSxzYHgCw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=303&sig=104010445271556418279&page=1&tbnh=132&tbnw=190&start=0&ndsp=55&ved=1t:429,r:24,s:0,i:174&tx=129&ty=50

[snaffe]

Hex is what the map is divided in : ). Every section/base/cap point is in a hex : )

hex = hexagon`s

http://www.google.se/imgres?um=1&hl=sv&client=firefox-nightly&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&biw=1920&bih=960&tbm=isch&tbnid=VGACC1tfb05jeM:&imgrefurl=http://openclipart.org/detail/22140/futurist-hexagons-by-steren&docid=G56z7HtA4OAy0M&imgurl=http://openclipart.org/people/Steren/Steren_Futurist_hexagons.svg&w=1379&h=955&ei=rusPUPzaBcKC4gSxzYHgCw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=303&sig=104010445271556418279&page=1&tbnh=132&tbnw=190&start=0&ndsp=55&ved=1t:429,r:24,s:0,i:174&tx=129&ty=50

hehe ah!

[Artimus]

What I can see happening is if you bring a good enough team you can take the hex.and then start grabbing surrounding hexes and spread like a virus you will definatly see this. Trust me.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

MOAR HEXEZ! I WANTZ MOAR HEXEZ 4 DE TR!

Now, to resume twiddling my thumbs. Beta... so close... yet so very... very... far...

[Timithos]

A sector is made up of 2-7+ hexes. You "take" sectors more so then hexes. You hold hexes with your presence; you take sectors with capture points. Sectors can contain structures like facilities, towers and/or bunkers; or just resources. Facilities are located in mostly 7 hex sectors.

[pengalor]

If you can draw off 100 enemy troops off the front line with only 20 of your own, that is a success right there whether you hold the base or not.

Honestly haven't read the rest of the thread but this right here. If there's a piece of territory that you really have your eye on then a distraction is still a viable tactic. All the people they send back to take care of it are people who aren't on the front lines. Not to mention once you capture that hex you'll have an easier time capturing any adjacent hexes.

Someone mentioned the missions, I get the feeling they will try to balance it out by not having game-created or dev-created missions to attack territory that is just being taken at the moment, the missions will likely pop up once the area is taken. This obviously won't apply to places with heated action but the heated action is enough to point missions to those areas.

[WNxThentar]

Before I start I want to define a few things so we don't misunderstand each other.
...

tl;dr: See thread title.

Blah blah blah.

So based on your lack of knowledge on what you know about how SOE want to implement this part of the game you'll say it is useless. This is called "an argument from ignorance" ... enough said.

IF this happens to be how it ends up then you can complain and SOE should do something to fix this part of the meta game but right now the game is in Tech beta, and I hope you aren't using tech beta knowledge to ramble on about game play issues because this is exactly why there is a NDA on. There are to many people whine and complain about mechanics that haven't been even put in yet or haven't been exactly fleshed out as far as actual numbers go.

[Gugabalog]

I pointed out a viable tactic in another thread. Say you're VS. You take a previously non-engaged border territory along the NC TR border.

Which side could resist taking an isolated Vanu territory? Both sides attack it. You extract. Voila, they are both diverted and that lightens BOTH Vanu fronts of zerg weight.

OP disproved. (Assuming there were any unengaged border territory ever)

[PhoenixDog]

I pointed out a viable tactic in another thread. Say you're VS. You take a previously non-engaged border territory along the NC TR border.

Which side could resist taking an isolated Vanu territory? Both sides attack it. You extract. Voila, they are both diverted and that lightens BOTH Vanu fronts of zerg weight.

OP disproved. (Assuming there were any unengaged border territory ever)

This

[Blackwolf]

I recall reading that some capture points only require a ground presence to flip sides while others require hacking (towers and possibly bunkers).

Enveloping a target base by taking the surrounding hexes would seem to be a viable strategy. There are other possible strategies that you could employ through back hacking.

Right now it doesn't seem like you are limited to the closest 3 types of spawn points when you die. It looks more like you can spawn anywhere on the continent, so if an assault team opens up a back hack then players dying can spawn at the back hack creating an instantaneous shift in the direction of troop deployment which could shift the tide immensely. Especially if the new spawn point was a tower on the far side of the base from the direction you are attempting to engage it from. Suddenly the defenders are fighting fewer and fewer people and the attackers are hitting them from the rear.

The tactic could do even more if you have little to lose behind your own lines (one or two bases between the front line and your own foot hold) and you open up a hack deep behind enemy lines. More spawn in and assault the nearby base and while your people are spawning in across the continent instantly, the enemy has to move manually or suicide/get killed to spawn back weakening the front lines. If you have friendlies still at the front lines, they might be able to push out further opening up two fronts on the enemy territory for them to fight at.

[Gugabalog]

Exactly. And think of the confusion of a 3rd faction force appearing far from their lines capping a single point in a base. Many would be "WTF?" and it would confuse the situation, altering the judgement of players and commanders involved, leading to less than favorable consequences.

[Stew]

Before I start I want to define a few things so we don't misunderstand each other.

(Based on information as of 7/24/12.)

There are 3 resources, there are 71 capturable territories. (~23 per side, ~8 per side per resource)

Territories that are adjacent to enemy territories take longer to capture.

Everyone has a pool of resources that has a cap on how much can be stored.

Tactical gameplay is figuring out how to take a base. Strategic gameplay is figuring out how to take a cont and which cont to attack afterward.
.

tl;dr: See thread title.

They will make some ressource depleated from particular territory and pop up in others so atacking those will worth it , they will introduce such mechanics to not make the combat only take place in the middle of the map